Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/29th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

29th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry[edit]

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk)
Toolbox

Nominating for A-class review. Feedback appreciated. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Support
    • Disambigs, alt text and external links all look good, well done.
    • I would suggest making clear in the lead that the Union Army is from the United States (I've seen complaints that using just "American" to refer to US topics is ethnocentrism.)
    • Lead, 2nd sentence: do you mean the regimental command wasn't organized until 1861? as currently worded it looks like a contradiction (the regiment's components were organized, they just weren't yet unified.)
    • Link to the CSA or the Confederate army somewhere in the lead for context about who the regiment fought. I think it's mentioned somewhere near the end of the third graph.
    • Massachusetts Battalion section: "The battalion served fairly light duty for the remainder of 1861." - what does light duty consist of? Clarify a little.
    • Same section, per our MOS, second references to names (Col. Ebenezer Peirce, Capt. Barnes) need to be shortened to just last names on second reference.
    • Same section, "incompetency" isn't right in this context, I think. Should it be "incompetence?" it could be "an incompetency" if the only thing he was being charged for was the failure at the battle, though.
    • Peninsular campaign section: "...and was amazed by the new type of naval warfare brought about by the innovation of ironclad vessels." - it sounds awkward to say a military unit "felt" something. Maybe the men in the unit were amazed, or the commander was amazed. Whichever context your sources clarify.
    • Battle of Fort Stedman section: you say the regiment played a minor role in several actions. Was it placed in reserve for this time? Was it in fortifications? What did it do between the few actions?
    • Mustering out section: It would be nice to have a summary of the details listed above on casualties and medals. Something like "The regiment suffered an estimated X killed, X wounded during its existence, and X troops won the medal of honor" though this is only a suggestion.
  • Overall a great article. Support pending a few changes. —Ed!(talk) 01:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Thanks for your input on the article. I believe I've addressed all of the above. Some comments on a few specific matters:
  • I reworded the first paragraph in the lead a bit and I hope the contradiction you refer to has been rectified. The formation of this particular regiment was quite unusual and it is difficult to capture in a nutshell. I hope it is clear.
  • I did some re-arranging in the Fort Stedman section and I hope it is more clear now what they were up to in the fall and winter of 1864-1865.
  • I would very much like to add the data you mention, but the regimental history only provides statistics on the number of dead (which I have added). Number of wounded, etc. is not compiled.
If there's anything else I can fix, just let me know. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good to me now. It has my support! —Ed!(talk) 21:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: This article looks pretty good to me. Just a couple of comments from me:
    • some of the image captions need full stops per WP:MOSCAPTION;
    • in the Massachusetts Battalion section, "When the 3th..." (this should be "3rd"). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Support

Enjoyed it! A couple of minor points:

Massachusetts Battalion:

  • In the first paragraph, it might be worth explaining in a sentence or two how the militia system worked at the time. At the moment it assumes the reader understands this.
  • "However, these new..." I'd avoid starting a sentence with "however"
  • "The failed expedition ..." The "failed" is the first mention of failure and distracts attention from the second, main part of the sentence. You could move it earlier in the paragraph, e.g. "In an unsuccessful effort to strengthen their hold..." perhaps?
  • "The battalion served fairly light duty..." This phrase felt odd to me, but I can't quite work out why. Might be the "fairly" bit.
  • Last paragraph. Several "however"s - you could probably lose one of them safely.

Peninsular campaign:

  • " various expeditions of minor importance" - read oddly to me. "various minor expeditions"?
  • "regiment witnessed" - I'm not sure they just witnessed it, as they also manned a battery of guns.
  • "However, as the campaign..." - I'd avoid starting with a "however"
  • "This Confederate counterattack..." First time I read this I linked the counterattack to the unit, as opposed to the Seven Days Battle - the "this" could be ambiguous. Would suggest clarifying.
  • "...a second assault on Richmond from the north, but in this effort..." "in this effort" feels redundant.
  • "...chose to invade..." could this be shortened to "invaded", making it punchier?
  • "Despite his hardships..." hardships felt like an understatement for the poor man! :)
  • "The Battle of Antietam had been a tactical stalemate, however, as Lee's army retreated back into Virginia, McClellan claimed it as a strategic victory." I think this needs an additional break/full stop somewhere in it, or perhaps a colon after "stalemate".

Fredericksburg campaign:

  • "Here they labored in digging entrenchments." "Here they labored..." felt slightly odd to me as a phrase.
  • "In January 1864, although their three-year term of service had not yet ended, the men of the 29th were given the option to re-enlist for another three-year term." Would this mean that they served three years from the moment of reenlistment, or would it be added to the original term?

Hchc2009 (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response. Thank you very much for these suggestions. The copy edits greatly improve some weak areas. I have revised all of the above. A few specific comments regarding the revisions:
  • As to the militia system and enlistments, I do address that in the beginning of the "Massachusetts Battalion" section and I worry that the lead is already getting too dense, so I am hesitant to pack more in there. I did change some wording in the lead to try to clarify the difference between 90 day units and 3-year units. I hope this suffices.
  • All your copy edits have been made. Thank you. I do tend to use "however" too much, it would appear.
  • Regarding the timing of the re-enlistment, it would be added to their original term. But their original term was almost up. I think I have clarified this by specifying that there were only four months left in their term.
Thanks again. Let me know if there is anything further I can do to address the above. Historical Perspective (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob's. You should have seen how many "however"s Fifelfoo had to help me remove from the medieval economics article I did earlier in the year! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. I made all the following changes; feel free to revert. I'm aiming my comments at budding copyeditors, but anyone is welcome to ask questions or disagree. I'm generally following Chicago and WNW. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the last section: "On August 11, 1865 the ...": On August 11, 1865, the. See Chicago 6.17, "Commas in pairs", and User:Dank/MIL#Paired commas.
  • Lead section: "the 3rd Massachusetts and 4th Massachusetts": the 3rd Massachusetts and 4th Massachusetts regiments (probably, although this isn't precise). See WP:MHCL#Clarity.
  • "designated as": designated (transitive verb per WNW)
  • Some won't like "29 battles and four sieges" per WP:ORDINAL (which might prefer 29 ... 4), and a similar statement in Chicago, but I've never seen a precise articulation of this rule. Also, later on: "nine killed, 31 wounded and four missing".
  • "the unusual distinction": the distinction. It wouldn't do any harm to make the sentence even shorter. See WP:MHCL#Repetition.
  • "the IX Corps (including the 29th Massachusetts),": I booted the comma, again per "Paired commas" and Chicago; this comma would have to be part of a pair to justify itself. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replaced a "however" with a "but" per Chicago 5.206 and 5.207. - Dank (push to talk) 05:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "outside of the Confederate capital": outside the Confederate capital, per Chicago 5.220. ("Outside of" is accepted in the sense of "except for" and as a noun: "The outside of the box.") - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per AP Stylebook and WP:ELLIPSES, put a space between a word and ellipses: "Massachusetts ... thrown" (even if no space was present in quoted material).
  • Be aware that Chicago's position on periods, commas and quotation marks (at 6.9) differs from Wikipedia's style guidelines, at WP:LQ. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "towards": toward. Per Chicago 5.220. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 28th Massachusetts which was an Irish regiment": the 28th Massachusetts, an Irish regiment. See the checklist, "Conciseness".
  • "mid July": mid-July
  • "Digging trenches, the 29th was exposed": While digging trenches, the 29th was exposed. Please edit this if I misunderstood you.
  • "However": but. Per Chicago 5.206 and 5.207.
  • "the siege was ended. ¶ Shortly after the end of siege": the siege was ended. ¶ Shortly afterward.
  • "Marching back to Vicksburg, the 29th was assigned the role of provost guard and marched at the rear of the IX Corps to gather stragglers.": On the way back to Vicksburg, the 29th acted as provost guard, marching at the rear of the IX Corps to gather stragglers. It wasn't clear to me whether the assignment happened during or at the beginning of the march; please fix it if I guessed wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Barnes who was forced": Barnes, who was forced. Comma before a non-restrictive clause. Chicago 6.22.
  • "who was forced to take an extended leave": who took an extended leave. The modern style is not to say that something caused or forced something else if the reader can be expected to make the connection on their own, unless you're trying to emphasize or draw special attention to the connection.
  • "September 26, 1863. ¶ In October 1863": September 26, 1863. ¶ In October. There are a few who disagree, but most prefer that you not repeat the year quite so often as you do.
  • "re-join": rejoin - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "re-enlist", "re-enlistment": reenlist, reenlistment
  • "ravelin": ravelin (detached fortification). From the checklist: "if many readers won't even be able to guess the right meaning, give at least a clue to the meaning." "Ravelin" is a word that Gilbert and Sullivan's "model of a modern major general" didn't know, so neither will many of our readers. In a judgment call, I didn't add a short description for sally port ... from context, most readers will know it's some kind of portal in the rear of the fort, and that's good enough so that they don't have to click if they don't want to, or can't. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs fixing. All done.

  • Follow the examples above and User:Dank/MIL#Paired commas throughout the article to add or remove commas as needed.
    • Followup: I just went through and fixed all these. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to find a way to consolidate "... Colonel Ebenezer W. Peirce who would later command the 29th Massachusetts." and (four sentences later) "Peirce was appointed the first commander of the 29th."
  • Remove commas in front of parentheses.
  • "forcing Confederate troops out of the region could help bring the state back into the Union": This represents someone's goal or expectation; whose? - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please fix "mid November", "mid May", etc. "Mid" requires a hyphen since it's not a word. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Union forces rapidly gathered in Knoxville, and the siege of that city by the Confederates began in mid November 1863. At the commencement of the campaign, the 29th had been stationed in the vicinity of Loudon, Tennessee, and, with other regiments of the IX Corps, fought a running fight to Knoxville, incurring few casualties." When a sentence has this many commas, ask yourself what's causing all the commas. In this case, per "Chronology" in the checklist, rewrite these two sentences in chronological order; also, it should be clear whether the other regiments were in Loudon, or joined the 29th along the way, or met up in Knoxville. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have rewritten in chronological order, also specified that the 29th was with the entire IX Corps.Historical Perspective (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some repetition in the last two paragraphs of 29th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry#Knoxville Campaign. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reworded these paragraphs slightly. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of these sentences can be replaced by adding a few words to the other: "Those men who chose to accept the offer would receive a 30 day furlough, while those that did not would be consolidated with the 36th Massachusetts to serve out their remaining months." and "From there, the men who had reenlisted were sent back to Boston for the furlough they had been promised and those who had not were sent on to Virginia to join the 36th Massachusetts." - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "carried the Confederate works in their front": I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case I believe it means "captured", I have reworded it thusly. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fought a running fight": pick a word other than "fought". - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your copy editing and comments. Been a busy week for me, but I should be able to get to these changes today or tomorrow. Thanks again. Historical Perspective (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a ping: I'm told that we need to stick to the 28 day deadlines, more or less, and for this article, that's Wednesday. Let me know if you have questions. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed a few of these, but there are still a couple outstanding which I wasn't able to fix, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your changes were helpful. We're almost there, but not quite, and the deadline is tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No edits by the nominator to the article or here other than this one since my review, and my understanding is we're trying to stick to the 28-day deadline. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Followup: I just went through and fixed all the paired commas. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I'm a day late and a dollar short, here, but I have fixed the last few suggestions made by Dank. Thanks to AustralianRupert for picking up the slack. Busy time at work + blizzard this week in New England = little time for me to check Wikipedia and I did not see your mention of the 28 day rule until today. I was not aware of this deadline. Hoping it might still be a viable candidate. Historical Perspective (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be fine, I've listed it for closure on the co-ords page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All done. Not that I'm assigning blame, but the deadline problem was more my fault than yours for starting my copyediting late. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/29th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment&oldid=1142557716"